Donald Trump Is Your Dad

Forwarding obvious Internet bullshit about crime, making up memories about Muslims

Do you know how your Dad (or your uncle, or whatever beloved-if-occasionally-cringe-inducing family member best fits this description) is always sending around forwarded emails that don't sound remotely true, having to do with stuff like crime and patriotism and refugees and Muslims and kids-nowadays? Do you know how a couple of times of year the mild amount of frustration this produces will overwhelm your otherwise good humor about it and you'll snap "Dad, in the amount of time you wrote that email, you could have seen that it wasn't true over at Snopes.com!"?

Well, Donald Trump is your Dad.

On Sunday, the GOP frontrunnertweeted this alleged infographic about the racial breakdown of crime statistics:

That is not true. According to data from the FBI, most whites are killed by whites, as most blacks are killed by blacks. There's an obvious reason for that: Most people are killed by someone they know — as is the case in 78.1 percent of homicides between 1980 and 2008, as we've noted before — and most people are related to and live near people who are of the same race as themselves.

Here's a Harper's Indexy way of looking at it:

81 – Percentage of white homicide victims killed by blacks in 2015, according to Donald Trump's twitter feed, retweeting a graphic from a made-up organization.

15 – Percentage of white homicide victims killed by blacks in 2014, according to the FBI.

That's not the only time this weekend that Trump hasn't let truth get in the way of disparaging minorities. On ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the real estate tycoon was challenged about this statement he made on Nov. 21:

Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.

The full exchange is revealing (I'll bold some bits):

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, the police say that didn't happen and all those rumors have been on the Internet for some time. So did you meek—misspeak yesterday?

TRUMP: It did happen. I saw it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You saw that…

TRUMP: It was on television. I saw it.

STEPHANOPOULOS:—with your own eyes.

TRUMP: George, it did happen.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Police say it didn't happen.

TRUMP: There were people that were cheering on the other side of New Jersey, where you have large Arab populations. They were cheering as the World Trade Center came down. I know it might be not politically correct for you to talk about it, but there were people cheering as that building came down—as those buildings came down. And that tells you something. It was well covered at the time, George. Now, I know they don't like to talk about it, but it was well covered at the time. There were people over in New Jersey that were watching it, a heavy Arab population, that were cheering as the buildings came down. Not good.

Donald Trump is just lying here. He did not "see" or "watch" "thousands and thousands of people" in Jersey City celebrate the twin towers go down, for the very good reason that no such images were ever broadcast on television. Among the fact-checking efforts I've seen on this claim—Snopes.com, Washington Post, the Associated Press, NJ.com, and so on—about the most evidence you can muster in the vague direction of Trump's story (minus him ever seeing any of it) is encapsulated here by Politifact:

The Associated Press, on Sept. 17, 2001, described "rumors of rooftop celebrations of the attack by Muslims" in Jersey City. But the same report said those rumors were "unfounded."

The Washington Post, on Sept. 18, 2001, published an article that claimed "law enforcement authorities detained and questioned a number of people who were allegedly seen celebrating the attacks and holding tailgate-style parties on rooftops while they watched the devastation on the other side of the river." The Post story includes no source for this information, and we found no evidence that any of these allegations ever stuck.

A more rampant rumor of Muslim or Arab-Americans cheering the attacks centered around nearby Paterson, N.J. But that turned out to be just a rumor, spawned by chain emails and perpetuated by shock jock Howard Stern's radio show.

The Star-Ledger reported that as the rumors spread, "Paterson police rushed to South Main Street, the center of the city's Middle Eastern community."

"When we got there, they were all in prayer," Paterson Police Chief Lawrence Spagnola said.

Glenn Kessler further drilled down on that Sept. 18, 2001 Washington Post article:

Of course, "a number of people" obviously does not equal "thousands" — and "allegedly" indicates there is no video footage or other proof that celebrations actually took place. Recall that Trump claimed he saw this on television — and that it was "well covered at the time."

Irfan Khawaja, an assistant professor of philosophy at Felician College in New Jersey, extensively attempted to trace the rumors of celebrations by Muslims in New Jersey and after months of inquiry came up with only the possibility that "a few Arab-American adolescents briefly relieved their political frustration in front of a library in South Paterson, a way that might be defined as celebrating."

But it does not matter that Donald Trump makes up memories about seeing thousands of Muslims cheer 9/11 in New Jersey, or retweets fake-ass crime stats making black people look like super-criminals. Why? Because Donald Trump's fanbase, and a wide swath of the conservative movement, simply hate the media more. As John Hinderaker says, "the hysterical and unqualified denunciations of Trump by the liberal media are far more misleading than his original statements were."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

My dad is a baby boomer progressive who fetes Obama, would root for Sanders (but “he doesn’t have a chance to win”, so he’s voting for Hillary), and once told me that Paul Krugman should be Secretary of the Treasury.

My dad is a boomer old-school conservative Democrat who loves Obama but hates the Clintons and is not at all feeling the Bern. I don’t know if he’ll be able to stomach pulling the lever for Hillary next November or if he’ll just sit at home, pining for Jim Webb.

My dad is 85 years old. He watches Fox, MSNBC, and CNN all day long, takes every word all of them say as Gospel and then gets it all mixed together and comes up with all sorts of crazy theories about everything. I don’t try talking politics with him because it will just get him more confused.

Dude, how old are you, like 8? Libertarians have only existed for about 10 years, right? I mean, maybe there were libertarians before then, but no one acknowledged it? Anyway, that’s a first, you’re the only person I know who has a parent that’s a libertarian. My parents didn’t even know what it was until I tried to explain it to them a few years back. They just think it’s some silly fad now.

There you have the effect of Nixon promising the media tax dollars to keep anyone from finding out abt the LP. If Reagan hadn’t declasified the internet the idiot still wouldn’t know there was a classical liberal party advocating repeal of prohibition and separation of church and state. Politicians sure as hell knew in 1931 (hence the 21st Amendment) and in 1951 (hence the Anti-Libertarian bribe the media law). The LP was nine before I discovered its existence and is still unmentioned by the media other than the backhanded way Reason hacks mention Trump Perot.

The LP was nine before I discovered its existence and is still unmentioned by the media other than the backhanded way

That may be your state. In WA, when I was executive director of the state LP, our statewide candidates were included in the interviews for all the major newspapers …local candidates of course … and if I wasn’t in every candidate debate, I was in the vast majority.

That’s addressed in the article, and it’s a pretty weak rebuttal. Trump claims that he saw, on television, thousands of people in New Jersey celebrating the attacks. His claim of seeing them on televisions is completely false, and there is no evidence that there was a crowd of anywhere near thousands of people celebrating in New Jersey to even be caught on television.

I think he saw thousands of people celebrating on the West Bank and is either lying or remembering it as New Jersey. People celebrating on the West Bank was all over the TV. In fairness, one third world shit hole like New Jersey or the West Bank does look like another, especially on TV.

You’re not getting it. If the TV news does a report on a tornado hitting a nearby town you might say “I saw that on television”, without any supporting video. All you actually saw was the anchor or a reporter reading a script and maybe a twister graphic or some stock footage. The lack of actual footage wouldn’t really matter before the ubiquity of video.

Trump got the numbers wrong. The actual numbers, while different, are no less depressing than the ones Trump gave. The fact that most people who are murdered are murdered by someone of their own race sounds nice until you realize how many more blacks are victims of murder than whites. The violent death rate among young black people, especially, black males is an ongoing national tragedy.

If you think black lives matter, the violent death rate for blacks is the problem you should be most worried about. I don’t understand why Reason seems to be denying that.

It seems to be. If not, then what is the point of this? Okay, Trump got the numbers wrong. His numbers while wrong, tell an underlying truth. Unless you deny the underlying truth the numbers were presented to prove, what the hell difference does it make that the numbers were not completely accurate?

John, I’m not even kidding when I say that I have seen SJWs make this exact same argument after being called out for presenting false statistics and information as fact. When this happens they will routinely make the same argument “Well this specific thing might not be 100% true, but it exposes an important underlying truth.” And I would contest that assertion by itself. It’s not like the numbers are even close to being accurate – the breakdown of the murderers of white victims is almost exactly reversed from what it is in reality.

If Sanders or Clinton retweeted BS false information like this, there is no way you would be granting them this much leniency.

It is not that there isn’t a criticism to make. It is just that the criticism isn’t very interesting or important. Okay, Tump’s people got the numbers wrong. I guess he has a bad organization or needs to fire someone. That is a truthful criticism. I don’t see how it is an important one or anyone should really care.

So, I am left with the question of why did Reason bother to make a post of of this? More importantly, why did they make a post out of it and from what I can see never mention the fact that the numbers while not accurate, they are pointing to a real problem. Since they didn’t do that, what is the reader left to conclude here other than the numbers are wrong and that black on black murder isn’t a huge problem?

Think about it, Matt makes a huge deal of pointing out how the high percentage of blacks murdered by blacks is not important since most people are murdered by someone of their own race. Why does he do that if not to get the reader to think black on black murder is not a problem? That is the impression I get from that. What other possible point could he be making?

“It is not that there isn’t a criticism to make. It is just that the criticism isn’t very interesting or important.”

A major presidential candidate sending out blatantly false information about how most white people get killed by scary black gangbangers isn’t interesting or important?

“Since they didn’t do that, what is the reader left to conclude here other than the numbers are wrong and that black on black murder isn’t a huge problem?”

Really? If Reason doesn’t explicitly condemn murder in a post about false statistics, then they must not actually think murder is a problem?

“Think about it, Matt makes a huge deal of pointing out how the high percentage of blacks murdered by blacks is not important since most people are murdered by someone of their own race.”

Matt never makes any such point. The guy he quotes states that most people are killed by someone of the same race – because Trump’s fake statistics state otherwise. If you read that part and your take from is that the guy was trying to say black on black crime isn’t important then you have really terrible reading comprehension skills.

If you are going to tell me Trump is an idiot, you won’t get an argument here. And sure reason doesn’t support murder.

Here is what I think is going on with that 81% figure. It is 81% of interracial murders are blacks murdering whites. I say that because if you just look at the cases where someone is the victim of murder by the other race. I say that because if you look at the 2013 statistics, I can’t get Matt’s link to work, I would put the 2013 data but the squirrels won’t take the link.

And do the math, you end up with whites being the victim in 84% of the murders where someone is white kills a black person or vice versa.

I don’t think that that number is totally made up. I think it is mislabeled. That doesn’t let Trump off the hook for sure but I don’t think it is a completely made up number.

Because I am a secret Trump supporter Nikki. You know that. I have a thing for bad hair pieces. I just can’t resist loving the Trumpster. We all have our blind spots and mine is guys with bad hair pieces.

Or maybe I don’t really give a shit one way or the other about Trump but just like to poke a stick at Reason. I let you decide.

Here are the FBI’s stats for Murder for 2013. They don’t list a separate category for Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide, though they do break out Justifiable Homicide separately. They list a total of 5723 victims. The problem is that, if you look at the CDC’s 2013 deaths in the US data, at Table 13, it lists 16,121 deaths due to assault, and another 4,587 deaths “due to undetermined intent.” Even if you take only the assault numbers, the FBI stats are only describing a bit over 1/3 of the total assault victims.

Still, like the drunk searching for his keys under the light post, it’s what we have to work with. I think it’s a decent story on Trump given that someone who is prudent wouldn’t be shooting his mouth off on Twitter with stats that read like one of Stormfront’s fantasies. And I’d like to thing that the President will be a prudent person.

I think the explanation is for the 85 percent number is what John wrote in one of his follow-on posts: in the set of inter-racial murders, where the victim and murderer are of different races, 85 percent of those crimes are committed by blacks against whites. But so what?

Following on, if that 80 percent number is true, it still has nothing to do with the risk of crime being committed against whites, by any race of offender. That number is still extremely low, historically. But holy hell, is there a violent crime problem in the African-American community, and the vast majority of it is directed against other African-Americans.

The mortality/morbidity from violence rates for African-Americans is just a national tragedy. Naturally, I can’t find where I last saw it, but when I last looked at, African-American males aged 75 had a similar death rate due to violent crime, as did white males in the 15-24 cohort. The death rate for Af/Am males 15-24 was something like 15X that for whites.

Going, by these statistics, that doesn’t even seem to be accurate itself. It takes a bit of parsing of the data (since Hispanic is an ethnicity, not a race, it’s treated as a separate category – most, but not all, Hispanics are included as white in the race section), but even assuming that all Hispanic killers of blacks are listed as white racially, and that all white victims of black killers are not Hispanic, the breakdown would be about 78% of black-white interracial murder victims being white. Since those assumptions are obviously not true, the actual number would be significantly lower, so the 81% or 85% figures are definitely not true.

Matt makes a huge deal of pointing out how the high percentage of blacks murdered by blacks is not important since most people are murdered by someone of their own race.

I just re-read the parts about the fake murder stats and I don’t see where Matt does this. If I’m missing something, please show me.

The problem, as other people mention is 1, that it’s not true and it isn’t that hard to find not-made-up numbers, and 2, that it is clearly spun to make it seem as if scary violent black people are the major threat to everyone.

You are right that black on black violence is a major problem. One that Reason could probably cover more. But the “infographic” (or is it a disinfographic?) is trying to make it look like black on white violence is also a huge part of homicide numbers.

And, while it is certainly a bad state of affairs and a problem, the fact that a large proportion of murders in the US are gang-bangers killing each other is important to consider in talking about violent crime in the US.

You know the real damning stats? News sources are citing the FBI data, and it shows that whites are a little more than twice as likely to be killed by blacks than blacks are by whites (15%-7%). By all means, maybe we should be having a conversation about race here.

If they are not denying it, why does Reason think this matters? Trump got the numbers wrong. Big fucking deal. His numbers right or wrong are not at odds with the truth. The only reason they would be a big deal is if they created a false impression and reality was the opposite of what they implied. Here, reality is exactly what the numbers in implied.

Yeah, it would have been better if his numbers were right. But since they conveyed the underlying truth of the matter, who cares? Either Reason is denying that truth or they are saying nothing. I don’t see why I can’t assume they are saying something here beyond “Trump’s campaign aides got some bad but not particularly deceptive numbers”.

His numbers right or wrong are not at odds with the truth. The only reason they would be a big deal is if they created a false impression and reality was the opposite of what they implied. Here, reality is exactly what the numbers in implied.

Did you miss the part where the infographic claimed the vast majority of murdered white people were killed by black people? When the reality is the opposite?

No I didn’t. But unlike you I learned something in Math class. Whites are a much larger population than blacks., So of course in raw numbers or as a percentage whites are going to be more likely to be murdered by another white person. Blacks, however, are only 12% of the population. Despite this fact, 19% of white victims are killed by blacks. And on top of that, blacks have a much bigger chance of being murdered by each other.

So the idea that white on black crime or police on black crime is the real issue is just wrong. Trump is an idiot with a worse staff. But that doesn’t change what the truth is.

You just posted another fake statistic yourself in this very post. The % of whites killed by black people is 15% (slightly above the black share of the overall population, which is 13-14%), not 19%. If you don’t think there’s an important distinction between 81% and 15% then I really do not know what to say.

“The only reason they would be a big deal is if they created a false impression and reality was the opposite of what they implied. Here, reality is exactly what the numbers in implied.”

The graphic claims that over 80% of white murder victims are killed by black people and only 16% are killed by white people. The reality is almost the exact opposite – how does that not meet your criteria?

I believe Reason has run quite a few stories about what you wish this story was about. This story is about Trump, da-dump, dump, dump, not violence among blacks. Whatevs. Say hi to your straw man for me.

Look, Reason staff has clearly developed a taste for GOP boot polish, but this is major league looting and pols can buy Nick’s version of Reason with breadcrumbs and Trump with favors. Nixon paid the media to portray the LP like zionist plutocracy in the NSDAP press as of the day we became a party. This money buys decoy politicians like Ross Perot, John Anderson and Ralph Nader to float onto the pond scum to do their bidding. Trump’s job is to shock the Geezers Old Partisans into realizing they have to quit shooting our kids to subsize Jack Daniels and Reynolds Tobacco or get whipped by Kenyans, girls and yaller dawgs. So Trump plays outsider, the yahoos whose kids are in jail or the gunshots O.R. lap it up. Trump suddenly decides maybe pot ain’t so bad and–unless the Alzheimers wing of the party wants THAT BITCH locking up abortion doctor shooters–party looters better observe that the flagpole did get saluted. When the election draws closer, Trump withdraws and a Positive Christian takes the limelight, the looters (“both parties”) keep those hands in the till and guns drawn. The word Libertarian is never seen on teevee and the ballots are secret and unverifiable. Q.E.D.

I think there will be a point next year where many people are terrified about terrorism, and will be somehow comforted by the “experienced,” old, guard taking over the White House, which means the Clintons. America’s fears will be soothed by the Clintons.

If “we” is libertarians, the trends chart published here shows we’ve been winning across the board in terms of reducing federal employee infestation, legalizing harmless stuff and obstructing mindless regulation. The LP offers a choice, voters with guts take that choice, the looters notice and change their platforms and America becomes less coercive. If by winning you mean getting sarcasmic elected to office… maybe not. I suspect that fear of accidentally getting elected and having to associate with disgusting people may be part of the difficulty in the way of finding candidates to run in opposition to the hordes of looter candidates.

Very stupid. It is the wages of lying. Our entire political and media classes tell outrageous lies like “the real danger facing young black men is being killed by a cop rather than being killed by another young black men” or “ISIS is not Islamic” or a million other things. This leaves the field to stupid people like Trump to score points by showing they at least are in some way connected to reality.

BLM are making the claim that black people are in greater danger of being killed by cops than are white people, and that cops face little or no consequences for even the most egregious incidents of violence against black people, both of which are true. They are not making the claim that cops killing black people is a problem and that black people killing other black people is not a problem.

So other people implying that most black people are killed by police or whites = bad, but Trump stating that most white people are killed by blacks = not that bad, because it is at least reflective of reality (despite not at all being reflective of reality)?

So let me get this straight; as long as the law enforcement arm of the state kills (and routinely self investigates and faces no punishment for doing so) proportionately less of a population than the criminals do, it’s no big deal?

Or are you going for the whole Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/King of All Black People du jour should decree an end to violent criminal activity before he can turn his gaze to any other issue vibe?

Donald Trump’s strategy is to become President without spending his own money. He doesn’t have the support of Republican establishment donors. Trump isn’t about to ask his grass roots supporters for money because none of them are about to give a billionaire their hard earned money.

So Trump stole a page from his friend Howard Stern and keeps his name in the news by saying outrageous things–just like Howard Stern used to do. If Trump offered Welch money to write this post, Welch would turn him down–because Welch has ethics and integrity.

It hurts to see Welch (albeit unwittingly) carrying water for Donald Trump–without even getting paid.

He’s running because he likes the attention and likes being famous–but he’s not about to lose any serious money over it. If and when journalists stop taking the stupid shit Trump says seriously, he’ll have to start spending his own money. If and when Trump has to spend his own money to stay competitive, he’ll drop out of the race.

Write stories about Trump, by all means. But how ’bout a story about how his negative polling percentage–among registered Republicans–is almost twice as big as his support? How ’bout a story questioning whether his shock jock strategy can keep him from spending his own money long enough to win the nomination? How ’bout a story questioning how much of his own money he’s spending–and what that says about his commitment to being the President of the United States?

Well, we know that Welch will write a book about a candidate–and make money for that. But that book was a take down. Welch was writing take downs of McCain’s maverick myth long before he wrote that book.

After reading that book, if I were a candidate, I might offer Welch money NOT to write a book about me. There’s a lot to write about Trump, too, that I think is probably under reported.

I bet few average Americans have heard anything about Trump’s mafia ties by way of the construction industry in New York City and the gaming/casino industry in Atlantic City. And that may be because they’re so busy keeping up with the never ending torrent of controversial. and stupid shit Trump says every day.

I bet few average Americans have heard anything about Trump’s mafia ties by way of the construction industry in New York City and the gaming/casino industry in Atlantic City.

You know, it’s certainly always going to be controversial, but I would guess that anyone doing any major construction or gambling business on the Atlantic Seaboard from the 1950s through the 1990s probably had to work with the mob if you wanted to get anything done.

I don’t know what the status of mob activity is in New York in these here modern times.

I’m searching for the story, but in the late 70s there was a MAJOR corporation that essentially got shut down by the mob because the board of directors were upright folks that didn’t get involved in such shady dealings. Not a shot was fired and a multi-billion corp was essentially run into the ground through death by a thousand mob/union cuts.

I’m not saying the criticism would be fair, but since when has fair made a difference to the media–especially in regards to political candidates for President?

“David Marcus writes that Trump bought the property that his Atlantic City casino Trump Plaza would one day occupy — for twice market price — from Salvatore Testa, a Philly mobster and son of one-time Philly mob boss Philip “Chicken Man” Testa….

Barrett writes that Testa and a partner, who together headed a Philly mafia hit-squad called the Young Executioners, bought the property for “a scant $195,000” in 1977. In 1982, Trump paid $1.1 million for it.

“The $220 per square foot that Trump paid for the Testa property was the second most expensive purchase he made on the block, even though it was one of the first parcels he bought,” Barrett wrote.

The casino was built with the help of two construction companies controlled by Philly mobsters Nicademo “Little Nicky” Scarfo and his nephew Phillip “Crazy Phil” Leonetti, according to, as Marcus notes, a New Jersey state commission’s 1986 report on organized crime.

Trump also had a decade-long relationship with Scarfo’s investment banker, according to Barrett’s book.

“In Manhattan, Trump used the mob-controlled concrete company S&A to build Trump Plaza condos. Anthony “Fat Tony” Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family, and Paul Castellano, the don of New York’s Gambino family, controlled S&A, according to federal court records Barrett cited in his book.

Barrett noted that he built the Trump Tower out of concrete, instead of steel, at a time when the mafia controlled much the concrete industry.”

Why should they find out? Few Reason subscribers found out about Trump liking medical marijuana two months ago and day before yesterday and suggesting it be treated like the 21st Amendment treats beer or wine. Many teenagers would be keen to hear about dad lightening up a little on weed. Researching this I found a page explaining how Marco Rubio wants the Political State to force all rape victims to reproduce, the only exceptions being males raped while doing time for victimless prohibition laws.

Hillary Clinton is the crazy bitch with all the cats that shoots at your dog if it even goes near her fence while meanwhile her cats are out every night to shit in your flower beds and she gets pissed at you if you mention it.

If you are worried about using too much energy to heat stuff up, the first step should probably be to ban living in cold places like Sweden. If he really cared about conservation he’d abdicate and move to Africa and live without air conditioning.

I agree that relying on false statistics is bad, naturally so. Yet did he get the general connections wrong? Relative to their part of the population, do blacks kill more blacks than white people do? Relatively, are they more criminal? That’s not talking about the web of reasons (such as residential and social segregation).

Well, it’s great that you would narrow it down that way, but the person Trump RTed sure didn’t.

The figure probably approaches 85%, because I doubt there are that many murders of whites by Asians. Presumably you are suggesting you would also remove Hispanics from that figure, but Hispanics can be of any race in federal race/ethnicity reporting, and most are considered white.

“Well, it’s great that you would narrow it down that way, but the person Trump RTed sure didn’t.”

True. But it’s accepated that these statistics are off. The interest was in figuring out how far the underlying sentiment is accurate. Not a very thrilling exercise, I find, at the moment. Thanks for the company, though.

(For the sake of completion, I would have counted Hispanics – and Mexicans – as non-white, based on Trump’s inclinations. I hadn’t even thought about Asians as a distinct group. It’s quite possible that the average Asian kills less people than the average white, somewhat in line with economic (and cultural) success.)

That’s absolutely true, but the underlying idea is that the average black guy is far more likely to kill, rob, or rape you than the average white guy. Who you’re more likely to bea killed by overall just comes down to where you live and who you associate with.

When Trump Perot was backing medical hemp and 21st Amendment repeal of federal weed bans he had a black Secret Service agent standing behind him with a gun. What part of that tramples the libertarian platform?

You mean like my dad who needs twenty search bars on Internet Explorer? Or who began deleting files inside the system32 folder because he got an anonymous email suggesting that certain files are actually viruses? *sigh*

In a way, Trump’s actions here should have been expected. He’s just copying how Carly defended her insufferable bullshit about that abortion video. Nobody on earth has seen the video, but Carly insists SHE she saw it — and nobody in the media has the guts to call her out,

And, of course, Carson’s bullshit denying any relationship with the fraudulent nutrition supplier, Mannatech. Even when Carson’s lie is PROVEN in an online video which is even worse than originally claimed.

And, of course Hillary, We may now be in the terminal stages of tribalism. Candidates can do or say anything, and their brainwashed tribe will accept it as gospel. Hallelujah.

It seems to work now, but what happens in the general election, when we’ll likely face two competing psychos?

Whaddaya mean two, paleface? Last I looked there was a Prohibition Party impersonator, a Communist Party impersonator and a genuine Libertarian Party. Back before the Nixon campaign purchase act, this crap began in spring, with nominations in summer and the election in November of the same year.

Wow. How could I have guessed that John would be in here polluting the thread with a vociferous defence of whatever idiotic thing Donald Trump said most recently? While simultaneously claiming that he’s not a Trump supporter, still.

I saw the same footage. Seems I remember they were in Paterson, NJ. Since I’m from Jersey, it hurt a lot.

I used to like Reason, but lately it seems some liberals have taken them over. Going to remove reason from my sources and relegate it to the same level as Huffington Post and Daily Kos that I only check to see what loons are pushing.

So are we still trying to ignore that Dad, the fake republican infiltrator, just said in front of God and Teevee it was OK to cop a buzz if really sick? and that the 21st Amendment ought to apply to weed just as it applied in 1933 to the evil Satanic narcotic drug beer and its Zionist buddy wine? Let’s at least try to make it look like Reason is not in the pocket of and struggling to bail out the Bush-Christie-Cruz prohibitionist ban abortion tax-and-spend soft machine the voters are spitting on. A little subtlety here and there would go a long way toward keeping up appearances.

As someone who thought he was a small “l” libertarian ever since 1972, way back when the big “L” Libertarian Party was first invented, because I was flabbergasted by Nixon’s wage price controls and also his gold policy, I have to say that I do not understand how anyone could be any sort of liberty lover and have any sympathy for Islam or Muslims. How can anyone who appreciates individualism of any sort, free speech or free press or freedom of conscience or freedom of thought, and not see that Islam is diametrically opposed to any and all such notions?

To me it is a false and very stupid “libertarianism” that thinks that Islam is not the opposite of any “liberty” that means anything. It looks like nothing but warmed over anything goes liberalism that sees any lack of appreciation of Islam and Muslims as just more bigotry and prejudice and irrational hatred of foreigners. But why don’t I fear and loathe Buddhists and Hindus and atheists and agnostics the same way as I fear and loathe Islam and Muslims? Is it only propaganda and lies? Has the history of the last 1400 years been so falsified that my reading of it has brainwashed me into believing that the religion of peace is a religion of military totalitarianism?

So if someone could explain it to me, I’m happy to listen, respectfully and patiently.

I’ll bite. James, I?m one of the nonmystical infidels you so evidently hate. I know that the weapons designed by non-superstitious Jewish scientists to destroy nationalsocialist Germany will work just as well on 11th Century mystics, so, m?me pas peur. Republicans and Middle Eastern religious fanatics alike worship death and the initiation of force, so I oppose their parties and support freedom and rights. You say you are Old-School Libertarian? This is a political party, we vote and change laws. It is not a tribal council or pep rally against the enemies of Yaweh, Krishna, Baby Jesus or Allah. Clear? Freedom is the absence of coercion. Go to aynrandlexicon.com and review some vocabulary. We’re not into collectivism. Our joining pledge is not at all anti-jewish, but rather, composed by Ayn during the Nurnberg trials. We want your vote, but the problem with offering free tribal advice is that you run the risk of finding out what it is worth to us.

I didn’t think it was nonmystical infidels who I hated. I thought it was those who believe in using force to get what they want out of life. I thought I believed as you state that, ” Freedom is the absence of coercion.”

But you missed my question. I don’t blame you too much as my wording was so wordy and convoluted. Let me try again.

IF ” Freedom is the absence of coercion,” then, how can we have any sympathy for Islam or Muslims? From all I can surmise, there is no freedom for the individual in Islam, and in Islam all is coercion and submission to the powerful rulers of Islam. In Islam, it is a never ending power struggle, as far as I can tell, between various factions who believe that violence talks and bullshit gets its head cut off. As far as I can tell. Where in Islam is there anything remotely resembling a civil society, such as developed in Christendom? Or as developed in ancient China with Confucius? Or any ideas of peace & tranquility such as The Buddha taught? I do not see it, and that is what I’m asking anyone here to explain to me, why I as a “libertarian” should feel any sympathy for Islam? Why, instead, should I not be fearing and loathing such a violent, unfree, unlibertarian, and oppressive way of thinking and believing? I’m not trying to be a Republican warmongering wise guy, I’m deadly serious, with emphasis on deadly as I am convinced that Islam wants me to convert or die.

The problem with my free tribal advice is that it not tribal. It is ideological, or if you insist, religious, since Islam is considered a religion. Are you telling me that you think that Islam has any use whatsoever for the non-aggression principle of libertarianism? Seems to me that Islam is all about violence, and that is why the Sunni’s and the Shia’s and all the other serious Islamic sects are not able to get over their violent tendencies and develop a rapprochement similar to the Catholics and Protestants at Westphalia. It might happen someday, but, what I’m asking is, does Islam have any ideas in the Koran or their other sacred writings that would allow them to live in peace with each other, let alone with non-Muslim?

Communism is also a religion, and none of its adherents have any use for freedom. But to go on a public screeching tirade against communists only gets you branded a belligerent mystical conservative of the sort that voters are tired of. Same with mohammedanism. Anyone belaboring the obvious fact that suicide vests are not stylish is sure to be portrayed as a racist John Birch Society Klansman, so why bother? Just as you catch more flies with honey you get more votes defending freedom. Sometimes it pays to condemn coercion, as when parents see a video and realize that prohibitionism exposes their children to murder at the hands of enforcement personnel. This is defense of individual rights, which is important. You want to see criticism of the Koran? Search for Richard Dawkins, who is not a political party.

“But to go on a public screeching tirade against communists only gets you branded a belligerent mystical conservative of the sort that voters are tired of. ”

As someone who has voted for Libertarians all his life, why would I suddenly care about what the stupid idiot mass of voters are tired of? I never ever voted for who or what I thought could win, I always voted for what I believed was good and true and right. I did not believe in libertarianism because I opposed communism; I opposed communism because I was a libertarian.

You have a funny way of putting things for a “libertarian.” I’ve heard about crypto-Marxists inside the libertarian movement, and I’m suspecting you might be one of them. For example, why are you promoting the Marxist smear against the John Birch Society that they are racist klansmen? If you don’t agree with their conspiracy theories, you can call them tin foil hate wackos, but racist klansmen? That gives your crypto-Marxist game away, sir.

I just got paid $6784 working off my laptop this month. And if you think that’s cool, my divorced friend has twin toddlers and made over $9k her first month. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. This is what I do,